October 14, 2015

"The misdemeanor charge against the gun-toting, self-appointed law enforcer is the latest twist in a case that, coming just a few days after a deadly mass shooting in Oregon, helped stir a fierce and ongoing national debate over the utility, and capacity, of ordinary people wielding concealed weapons to stop and prevent crime. The alleged act of vigilantism occurred on Oct. 6, five days after a gunman opened fire in a classroom at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., and killed nine people before committing suicide...."

That's the WaPo article about Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez, who pretty obviously deserved to be charged with a crime. Boy, did she step up fast... not just to stop crime but to pose as poster child for the anti-gun propaganda that says you're delusional if you think concealed carriers of guns are going to protect you — those people are nuts.

I don't know the precise law, but assume that what she did was criminal, and she should be prosecuted the same as any other criminal.

Having said that, if we are going to have an honest debate about guns, then we should start with honest headlines.

A Michigan woman who fired at a fleeing Home Depot shoplifter...

She did not fire at a fleeing shoplifter, she fired at the tire of his car. Still illegal. I have no idea how reckless, since I don't know what was near or downrange from where she was aiming. But certainly not the wild west/vigilantism of shooting at someone as incorrectly stated in the headline.

This is a really big country, with a lot of people, and a lot of guns, in it. The fact that something like this is a national news story really says a lot about how infrequently this sort of thing happens.

For me, this is a perfect example of why those UT Profs shouldn't be panicking. Much of the behavior that they are panicking over is illegal and will get a concealed carry licensee arrested if they break the law, often very strictly interpreted. This theif does not appear to have been violent, which means that there was no legal justification for drawing the firearm. A CCW license is not a license to help effectuate arrests of nonviolent suspects. Concealed firearms should stay holstered until there is some threat f violence, and not pointed at anyone until you are ready to shoot them in self defense.

When the shoplifter climbed into a waiting get-away vehicle, Duva-Rodriguez pulled out a concealed handgun and “fired shots at the suspect vehicle as it fled, flattening a tire,” according to an Auburn Hills Police Department news release. The two alleged shoplifters escaped but were arrested several days later. Only one, 46-year-old getaway driver Anthony Harris, has been publicly identified.

How is a fleeing get-a-way vehicle being chased by police (after a 911 call from a citizen) more dangerous than a well aimed bullet shot by a citizen?

Should we hold citizens responsible for the consequences of their 911 calls? Ask Tamir Rice?

In a country of 300+ million people, you would think that cases like this would pop up every day, kind of like the dozen or so people killed every day by pot intoxicated drivers, up from 3 or 4 a day a decade ago....

You would think, but you would be wrong, because these things are driven by newsroom narratives and are pushed as such and stories are spiked or published as such.

There are enough legal gun owners out there that sooner or later somebody will do something foolish. But somehow I think that if you were to collect every instance of a legal gun owner overreacting to a given situation or otherwise behaving carelessly it would pale in comparison to the number of illegal guns users committing violent acts. Such rare occurrences should have little bearing on discussions on gun rights and gun control, or at least not any more bearing than people doing foolish things with ladders, swimming pools, or ATVs on their respective legal statuses.

Not sure if not drawing a firearm in response to an armed robbery is good advice legally. Probably depends on the state. Still, self-defense laws tend to provide for protecting others who are faced with a reasonable threat of imminent death or great bodily injury. An armed robber pointing a gun at someone would seem to fall into these provisions by visibly threatening deadly force. Not mandatory, but maybe allowed.

Still talking to a friend who works at a small convenience store. His stated position is to not interfere if someone tries to steal anything, but will draw and fire the second he or anyone else is actually threatened with death or great bodily injury. Not likely though, since the sheriff, jail, and dispatcher are across the street.

What the narrative demands are causes that don't upset the target audiences of major advertisers. For advertising to work best, a gullible, young, and impressionable audience is required. In other words, you want an audience whose critical thinking skills are, shall we say, less than formidable. You want liberals.

An armed robber pointing a gun at someone would seem to fall into these provisions by visibly threatening deadly force. Not mandatory, but maybe allowed.

We were told that while it's probably allowed, it's a bad idea unless one has reason to believe that the robber is really about to shoot someone. The emphasis of the training here was on never escalating a situation.

Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility. If you want to carry one, you need to be willing to use it and to live with the consequences if you do. If you so lack self control that you shoot a shoplifter running out of a store, then you shouldn't be carrying a gun or should look into becoming a cop where doing that kind of thing is never punished and often rewarded.

I say this as someone who is an absolute fanatic about gun rights and people's human right to defend themselves; they ought to throw the book at this woman. What a complete idiot.

We were told that while it's probably allowed, it's a bad idea unless one has reason to believe that the robber is really about to shoot someone. The emphasis of the training here was on never escalating a situation.

Yeah, if somebody has pulled a gun and is just after some money, I'm going to give it to him. Getting into a shoot out over the contents of a wallet or a till is just dumb. Its not worth risking your life over and is going to entangle you with the criminal justice system.

A gun should only be used in a situation where "its better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

"The alleged act of vigilantism occurred on Oct. 6, five days after a gunman opened fire in a classroom at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., and killed nine people before committing suicide...."

Yeah, and it also happened a few days (and weeks and months) after (and before) yet another gunman shot someone pumping gas in nearby Detroit:

What she did was dumb, but I am OK sending her to jail ONLY if a cop who had done the exact same thing would also go to jail. Maybe I'm wrong, but from the stories I see, it sounds like cops rarely go to jail for something like this even though they presumably know the law better than civilians (we will see if Kissinger Barreau gets charged for shooting at fleeing teenagers while off duty). Michigan, like most states, allows citizens to make arrests. Could a cop have lawfully used potentially deadly force to try and stop this felon? Probably not under Tennessee v Garner if that's still the law. And if not, then neither could she. But do not send her to jail unless you are also going to send the on or off-duty cop that does this next week to jail. How about Elias Montoya -- cop shot at a fleeing van full of children. Now working for a sheriff's office in New Mexico and never went to jail. Just my opinion, but if you aren't willing to send the cops to jail then you are subjecting cops to a much lower standard (notwithstanding all of their training), and citizens to a much high standard, when they step in and try to stop a crime.

For every misuse like this, there are hundreds of lawful and effective personal defenses. None of those ever get in the paper. Of course. The paper has an agenda because it is owned by plutocrats who want the citizens disarmed.

There are plenty of retards like garage who will paint all gun owners with the same brush.

Yeah, if somebody has pulled a gun and is just after some money, I'm going to give it to him. Getting into a shoot out over the contents of a wallet or a till is just dumb. Its not worth risking your life over and is going to entangle you with the criminal justice system.

I'd pull the gun and then make damned sure the thief is dead. Much easier case to win.

The actual city of Detroit has very few nice things, because as soon as someone is foolish enough to open a store, the inhabitants descend on it and shoplift, strong-arm, defraud, etc., it out of existence.

The suburbs are able to keep some nice things in proportion to their distance from the city.

Of course, if you get too far from Detroit, you get closer to other dead cities such as Flint, where the robbers in this case were from.

Note that I called these guys robbers, not shoplifters. The MO is to load up a cart with expensive stuff, then rely on speed and strength to push it right out the front door before the security guards can catch you. If the guards do catch up, do you think the robbers just hand over the gear and surrender or run away empty handed? Um, no. They fight. That's a lot closer to strongarm robbery than it is to slipping a pack of gum into a coat pocket.

So picture yourself as a working-class inhabitant of a frontline suburb. You see this looting, this strong-arm robbery, happening in front of your eyes. In your mind, you see your town slipping toward the fate of Detroit: how many more incidents like this will lead to Home Depot shutting the location, which will lead to the whole mall closing, which will lead to your neighbors and maybe you losing a job?

Would be interesting to see the result if this lady insists on a jury trial. Of course, then the prosecutor might up the ante by charging her with attempted murder, agg batt, or some much higher felony, with a nice hate-crime enhancement. Or maybe not - most Oakland County voters are still people with jobs, and the county relies for its revenues on taxes from its inhabitants and businesses, not redistribution from DC.

The fact that she missed doesn't get her off the hook or make her actions any less reprehensible, you half wit. I guess, taking a shot at someone is no big deal as long as you don't hit them. No harm no foul theory of jurisprudence.

It is one thing to be stupid. Most people on the internet are. It is quite another to be arrogant like you are. Are you trying to set some sort of record for annoying stupidity?

"Here, they were very explicit. Even in an armed robbery, do not draw your weapon."

You have got to be kidding me. An armed robbery is exactly the sort of situation where lethal force can be justifiably used in self-defense: an armed robber is threating you with death or serious bodily injury! Whether you do, or don't, draw is very much case-specific based on the tactical situation; but a blanket don't-draw is every bit as bad advice as the traditional cooperate-with-hijackers advice was.

"We were told that while it's probably allowed, it's a bad idea unless one has reason to believe that the robber is really about to shoot someone."

You have got to be kidding me ^ 2! If someone has a gun out and pointing at someone, they are visibly "about to shoot someone". Once he pulls the trigger, it's a little late to intervene.

Ron,

"... if somebody has pulled a gun and is just after some money..."

Have you ever been in such a situation? To say, from the comfort of your armchair, that the gun-wielder is "just after some money", implies future certainty that you absolutely do not have in the moment.

Know how you tell that the robber is just after some money, and doesn't intend to harm you? When he turns to leave and goes away without shooting you, and yes at that point it's no longer justifiable use of force if you shoot him. But while the gun is still pointed at you? You have no idea.

Much as the criminal may be a complete waste of life, I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where shooting someone--or even pulling a gun--will be permissible where only a loss of property is at stake. (If you shot or threatened to shoot someone because you thought they were going to harm you or others, you have to make damn sure your belief was objectively reasonable, as you may have to convince a jury of that).

While it may seem unfair that a robber can get away with their crime, this is as much about preventing escalation of robberies into deadly situations and reducing the likelihood of innocent people getting killed.

If you absolutely positively have to kill someone because they stole something, try to turn their body around after they're dead and maybe plant a knife on them or something. But you didn't hear that from me!

The fact that she missed doesn't get her off the hook or make her actions any less reprehensible, you half wit. I guess, taking a shot at someone is no big deal as long as you don't hit them. No harm no foul theory of jurisprudence.

She was aiming at the tires. That is what she says, that is what the police say, that is what the prosecutor says. No witnesses say otherwise.

That does not make what she did legal, nor excusable. But please stop spreading lies, even if you are only doing it out of your own ignorance.

"Well, the sheriff arrived with his bathrobe onThe confrontation was a tense one.Shook his head said, 'Bubba Boy,'You was always a dense one.Reckless discharge of a gunThat's what the officers are claiming.'Bubba hollered, 'Reckless! Hell!I shot just where I was aiming.'"

I’m not going to shoot someone over a wallet and some credit cards. I would toss the wallet away and run in the other direction. Let him have it.

If he is not satisfied with the wallet and wants to search me for more? No one gets my weapon. I will not be shot with my own weapon. He’s going to be shot.

And of course if he attempts pursuing me instead of going for the thrown wallet and allowing me to run away he’s going to have a nasty little surprise.

But I’m only going to let bullets fly if life is in danger.

The exception of the SUV-shooting woman proves the rule. If this type of incident was so common that it did NOT make the headlines – then the anti-gunners would have a point. But it isn’t and they don’t.

I don't know how anyone could misinterpret the training given to get a concealed carry permit. She obviously found a loop-hole and did not actually receive the training. Someone sold her the permit for money.

Brando said..."...I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where shooting someone--or even pulling a gun--will be permissible where only a loss of property is at stake...

While it may seem unfair that a robber can get away with their crime, this is as much about preventing escalation of robberies into deadly situations and reducing the likelihood of innocent people getting killed."

You seem to be mixing up theft, a property crime, and robbery, a violent crime against a person. Every jurisdiction in the civilized world allows shooting a robber dead on the spot, and that's exactly the way it should be. -- Char Char Binks, Esq.

Know how you tell that the robber is just after some money, and doesn't intend to harm you? When he turns to leave and goes away without shooting you, and yes at that point it's no longer justifiable use of force if you shoot him. But while the gun is still pointed at you? You have no idea.

True, and that thought has occurred to me, but if the gun is already pointing towards you, its too late to pull yours. You're not likely to outdraw someone who has already drawn.

You have to make a judgment call. If the gunman demands my money I will most likely give it to him and not antagonize him in any way. I'm not Dirty Harry, I have no wish for someone to "make my day."

On the other hand, if he wants me or my wife to get in a car or otherwise go somewhere with him I am going to resist because their is no good ending for me or my wife in that scenario.

Certainly, you don't shoot at a car leaving the scene because, among other reasons, you could hit a bystander. That's a risk even in close combat, let alone shooting at a distance with a pistol

"You seem to be mixing up theft, a property crime, and robbery, a violent crime against a person. Every jurisdiction in the civilized world allows shooting a robber dead on the spot, and that's exactly the way it should be. -- Char Char Binks, Esq."

I mistakenly conflated the two--replace "robber" with "thief". Obviously if there's reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm you have the right to self defense. But you don't have the right to kill to protect property alone.

I am currently reading "The Big Bloody Book of Violence" and one of its recommendations is that if you get a carry permit you should also put a lawyer on retainer because, as a practical matter, if you shoot someone, you are going to need one.

"I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in some jurisdictions you no longer have the duty to retreat if someone breaks into your house."

That's the "castle doctrine" and while it can open the door for killings in defense of property, my understanding is that you still have to reasonably fear imminent harm to you or others before you can use deadly force. The fact that you have no duty retreat from a practical standpoint means it becomes more likely you will have that reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. But I don't believe that if you're standing there on your stairwell and the burglar grabs a TV and tries to run off with it that you have license to shoot him (unless somehow in grabbing that TV and leaving he put you in reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm).

The upshot is you have to use a proportional response when using a weapon.

The fact that she missed doesn't get her off the hook or make her actions any less reprehensible, you half wit. I guess, taking a shot at someone is no big deal as long as you don't hit them. No harm no foul theory of jurisprudence.

I see that Ignorance is Bliss has already replied to this, but I'll second. She didn't "miss." She aimed at a tire, and the tire is what she hit.

Every jurisdiction in the civilized world allows shooting a robber dead on the spot...

True. But don't think it will be an easy task. The prosecutors will make your life a living hell.

Every witness will have a different story, and every witness does not have your interests at heart.

Some witnesses may even accuse you of some form of murder. An assassination.

If you're going to kill someone, make sure there are no witnesses or cameras first. Even if you are legally in the right, you have to prove it. Forget about all that assumed innocent crap from TV. It doesn't work that way downtown.

A friend of a friend, with a carry permit, was in a shop when two guys came in to rob the place. The armed customer thought one of the robbers was acting crazy, as though he was on drugs or going through withdrawal or something, and that he was likely to kill someone (or everyone) in the store. So he pulled his gun and told the crazy robber to drop his. The crazy robber shot him, but didn't kill him. The customer then shot and killed that robber. He wounded the second robber, who escaped but was later caught by the police.

Two things: (1) The cops said that this customer probably saved a lot of lives. The guy he shot was very likely to have killed everyone in the store. The only thing the customer did wrong was give the guy a chance to shoot him: He should have killed the SOB outright. (2) The customer spent a long time recovering from his wounds, but a longer time recovering from the pyschic injury of knowing that he'd killed another human being.

If you think that you could kill another human being and not feel bad about it, you probably shouldn't carry.

A particularly interesting (perhaps bizarre) feature of Texas law is that at night, deadly force can be used in just about any property theft case with no lower limit to value. Some guy stealing aluminum cans out of your garbage in the middle of the night? Blow his ass away, if you've got the nerve and can stomach the consequences.

I understand that Texas is special and most jurisdictions don't justify deadly force in these sorts of situations. Indeed, in the US, there is probably nowhere else so shooter friendly.

"I’m not going to shoot someone over a wallet and some credit cards. I would toss the wallet away and run in the other direction. Let him have it."

I wouldn't shoot someone over a wallet and some credit cards, either. I would excise his worthless ass from the gene pool over his belief that he has a right to threaten my life over a wallet and some credit cards.

"Firstly, she hit was she was aiming at--the tire of the get away vehicle. Making it sound like she was blasting away indiscriminately is a media narrative."

I don't know if that's true or not. The source of that claim that she was shooting at the tires appears to be the woman herself; who else could it be? Maybe she was and maybe she wasn't, but I don't think her testimony is helpful in deciding the truth of the matter.

As for the fleeing felon rule, she's not being charged with using deadly force without justification, she's being charged with using it recklessly. Perhaps she would have been justified in using deadly force against the thieves, but she can't do it recklessly, can she? Even if she was shooting for the tires (a question of fact which we can't really answer here), a charge of recklessness is not silly. Recklessness should be a question of fact for a jury to decide, if it goes that far.

Proper result, in my opinion, is probably probation/community service and surrender of her permit.

In March 2006, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-American, intentionally, as he confessed, hit people with a sport utility vehicle on the campus of the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide" and to "punish" the United States government. While no one was killed in the terror ramming attack, nine people were injured (none seriously).

Shortly after the attack, he turned himself in and was arrested. He pled guilty to nine counts of attempted first-degree murder, and in 2008 was sentenced to 33 years in prison, on two counts of attempted murder.

In one letter, Taheri-azar wrote, "I was aiming to follow in the footsteps of one of my role models, Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, who obtained a doctorate degree."

"The source of that claim that she was shooting at the tires appears to be the woman herself; who else could it be? Maybe she was and maybe she wasn't, but I don't think her testimony is helpful in deciding the truth of the matter."

If there is only one person who could conceivably know what she was shooting at, why exactly do you think that person's testimony is not helpful?

And just for a reality check here, folks, yeah, it is likely that she violated the law. And she probably did not exemplify good tactical reasoning, either. But if I got to choose who was going to live next door to me, I would prefer her to the shoplifters. I would sentence her to a 3-month suspension of her license, and maybe require she take the training again. I'm guessing she would pay closer attention the second time.

Jupiter said... "If there is only one person who could conceivably know what she was shooting at, why exactly do you think that person's testimony is not helpful?"

Because I believe (perhaps I'm overly cynical) that no matter what she was aiming at, she would likely claim that she was shooting at the tires. It's like asking Bill Clinton if he had sex with "that woman." Doesn't make any difference whether he did or didn't, the answer is the same. It's very much to her advantage, in the opinion of others if not legally, for her to have shot at the tires only and there is no way to contradict her claim -- that's the best time to lie.

Some people are liars and some aren't, but I don't know how to tell them apart and suspect that nobody does. Except by experience with individuals, of course.

Phil said... "Ring my doorbell at 4 in the morning, you're likely to get shot. Bang on my back door at four in the morning, you're guaranteed to get shot. Bad luck for the drunk Scotsman; he picked the wrong door."

Good luck for the shooter he was in Texas. There have been some recent cases around the US where the results for the shooters were not so salubrious.

Here's one of my favorites; not from Texas but from neighboring state. Just to show that Texas doesn't have a corner on the nut market.

If someone were banging on my door at 4am, I wouldn't shoot him just like I don't shoot the homeless guys that rummage through my trash in the middle of the night. When the door opens or entry is made, that's another story. I don't want a drunk Scotsman on my conscience.

In other states, the rule seemed to be that if you shoot somebody trying to break in, drag him inside before you call the cops. In Texas, you don't need to do that, just fire away.

"Because I believe (perhaps I'm overly cynical) that no matter what she was aiming at, she would likely claim that she was shooting at the tires."

So you are saying that you prefer to base your opinions on no evidence at all, rather than the only evidence available. Or rather, you prefer to ignore any evidence that does not support your preferred version of the facts. Seems reasonable.

Does the fact that what the bullet actually hit was a tire, not a shoplifter, play any role in this deductive system of yours?

[The] drunk Scotsman... was dispatched (as I recall) with a single shot from a .25 ACP

"And fired through the door!"

A glass door, as I recall. I see the NYT article says that three shots were fired. My recollection is that he only hit with one, but that was a long time ago. It was very big news in Houston at the time.

Jupiter said..."So you are saying that you prefer to base your opinions on no evidence at all, rather than the only evidence available. "

No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that when the only evidence is very poor that I can't draw a reliable conclusion. If there is other evidence available, if, for example, every shot she fired hit a tire, well, that's more evidence. If she hit a lot of other stuff too, that's also more evidence.

The article says she fired "shots." What did she hit besides a tire? Do we know?

Anyone committing any crime should fear death as a consequence, whether delivered by an irate civilian while committing the crime or running away from it, or from the all powerful state after trial and sentencing. The death penalty should exist for every crime, with guilty parties being randomly selected for it. If a potential criminal knew there was a one in one thousand chance he/she was going to be executed for shoplifting, rather then a simple short and possibly suspended jail term- there'd be a lot fewer shoplifters.

Being from Michigan, I happen to know what a Rohrshach Test this is for the media.

While the national press seems to love this story for the implied message of "some concealed-carry licensees are nuts," I don't suppose any of you heard about the suburban Detroit bank robbery that was foiled when the armed robber was shot by a CPL holder as the robber exited the front door of the bank. The CPL holder was such a good shot, he shot the robber first in the arm and then the leg to incapacitate him without killing him.

"he shot the robber first in the arm and then the leg to incapacitate him without killing him."

Sounds like he was going for center-of-mass, submarined the front sight from anticipation, and got the leg. Muzzle climb put the second round in the 10-ring, but the arm was in the way, because the perp was pushing the door, holding his loot, etc.

By the way, a shot to the arm or leg could sever the brachial or femoral artery, respectively, and bring on death faster than many shots to the torso....